3 ms·
Maxklein, I have an idea for you. After you write something, read it again and add "you idiot!" to the end. If it sounds like the tone is compatible, then rewri
by dcurtis 18y ago
Maxklein, I have an idea for you. After you write something, read it again and add "you idiot!" to the end. If it sounds like the tone is compatible, then rewrite what you said until it is polite.
Anyway, with respect to the topic: you're suggesting that there is the possibility of a higher level of knowledge beyond what we can observe with our physical eyeballs. This is a fallacy that goes against everything science stands for. Science is the platform upon which you build models that describe the physical world.
For example, if we witness the effects of gravity occurring over and over in many experiments, then we can create a model of what we saw: the Law of Gravity. Then we can make the assumption that whenever there is mass, there is gravity. So far, it works. If something can be physically shown to break/violate the law, then it will be reexamined and the model will be changed to satisfy the new information.
There is no evidence of anything above or beyond the physical/theoretical models of science. To suggest there is implies faith.
Are you religious, maxklein?
- maxklein 18y agoI'm not religious, and I have no inclination to argue a simple and obvious point. Observation is inherently limited by our observational capabilities, and this is not a radical thought, it's a very very basic thought. So your argument is not just wrong, it's incredibly wrong, and you should not be making it. For example: Electrons. To posit that there are electrons, but viewed strictly from a 16th century perspective is a position that cannot be observed based off the technology available to them at that time. As a purist, I take offense when anybody tries to claim that observation and experimentation can be anything but assumptions. It is something we observe to be a certain way, but very restricted by our particular viewpoint. You think you are a man of science, but what you actually are is one of those people who said the earth could not be round because it looks flat. I've said something that is perfectly realisitic if one has some imagination, and you immediately shoot it down because it does not conform to how you think scientists should think. Free your mind, and learn to deal with uncertainty.
- dcurtis 18y agoScience in its current form wasn't prevalent back when people were saying that the Earth couldn't be round. Any modern day scientist would always be open to the possibility, given physical evidence. The very best model at the time showed that the earth was flat-- hey, it looks flat when you go outside. But evidence through experimentation led to the model being updated. Electrons are small and you can't see them with your eyeballs. But J.J. Thomson used models of how cathode rays work and how electrical conduction works, and he hypothesized and then experimentally showed that electrons exist. They may not exist, and any good scientist would be open to that possibility, given evidence. But the best models we have today show that they do exist. Observation and experimentation are one level beyond assumption. They're assumption backed by evidence. Blind assumption is to "suppose a case is true without proof." Imagination drives science, true. But nothing imagined is ever considered science, or even possible, without some kind of evidence. Uncertainty is fine. Is there dark matter? Is it possible to travel faster than the speed of light? Why are photons both particles and waves? Uncertainty is what makes these the interesting questions in science.
- maxklein 18y agoThese are the easy things to be uncertain about. But what about the more difficult things? For example - is time discrete? Such a concept would require as the very first step that we must let go of our usual observational abilities, as they are unable to step outside of time. So, first we have to discover how to observe, and only then can we start to experiment.